Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

One thing that never seems to happen to us is recruits commit while on visits, its rather annoying really.

This one came down to a tug of war between parents. His Mom wanted him to stay home and go to Oregon. His Dad (who lives now in Lancaster) wanted him at USC. That's why our staff wouldn't take his commitment until his Mom came out here. She never did from what I heard. And that was that.

This one came down to a tug of war between parents. His Mom wanted him to stay home and go to Oregon. His Dad (who lives now in Lancaster) wanted him at USC. That's why our staff wouldn't take his commitment until his Mom came out here. She never did from what I heard. And that was that.

I don't believe he had a committable offer from Oregon when he committed here. Nor do I believe he ever intended to come here if & when he got that committable offer from Oregon. Also USC wanted him to commit & he did so. It was his idea, not USC's, to use the visit from his mother to make it official. That bought him all the time he would need to see where he stood with Oregon & any other team. USC was not even in his top two when he made his commitment to Oregon. That says it all imo. On May 2 he's still committed to USC, on May 4 he's committed to Oregon & admits Boise St was his 2nd choice. He played USC then tried to make them the villain.

In the end, I don't blame the kid one bit for staying a little closer to the parent who is raising him at the present time. He was put in a difficult situation not of his own making. Good luck to him going forward. Yes, he could have handled things much, much better, especially in the comments he made after he committed to Oregon. But he's still a kid & is entitled to a pass imo.

Don't understand why that statement is so often employed. Like saying I trust the traffic light. It is a given to trust overall we all must id the most significant imput factor, ie the traffic light, the HC. But anyone with half a brain still looks both ways. We all realize the decision for the light, HC to act is likely triggered internally but also based on external expertise, traffic patterns, traffic experts, trends as well as abnomalties. Same for recruiting. SS offers are based on greatly influenced by external sources of expertise. Indeed with occasional exception staff's decision to even initially look at a kid at all is typically based on information and imput gathered, organized and deciminated by trusted outside experts eyes, ears, judgment and expertise. It is no different than the choice by SS to turn over his defensive performance to another group of individuals whos expertise he trust. Doesn't mean by default SS has absolutely no clue when it comes to defensive FB. It means he fully recognizes he is a CEO who must be selective on where and when he aplies his personal time and effort. That he deciminate most actions to others. A strong argument can be made that the determination as to who, how, when and under what criteria he chooses those individuals who will in turn situationaly choose and act for him may well be the most important decision actions he makes.
To except opinions other that SS to matter is not to say the opinion of SS matters less.

Don't understand why that statement is so often employed. Like saying I trust the traffic light. It is a given to trust overall we all must id the most significant imput factor, ie the traffic light, the HC. But anyone with half a brain still looks both ways. We all realize the decision for the light, HC to act is likely triggered internally but also based on external expertise, traffic patterns, traffic experts, trends as well as abnomalties. Same for recruiting. SS offers are based on greatly influenced by external sources of expertise. Indeed with occasional exception staff's decision to even initially look at a kid at all is typically based on information and imput gathered, organized and deciminated by trusted outside experts eyes, ears, judgment and expertise. It is no different than the choice by SS to turn over his defensive performance to another group of individuals whos expertise he trust. Doesn't mean by default SS has absolutely no clue when it comes to defensive FB. It means he fully recognizes he is a CEO who must be selective on where and when he aplies his personal time and effort. That he deciminate most actions to others. A strong argument can be made that the determination as to who, how, when and under what criteria he chooses those individuals who will in turn situationaly choose and act for him may well be the most important decision actions he makes.
To except opinions other that SS to matter is not to say the opinion of SS matters less.

Trusting the coaches has nothing to do external expertise being good or reliable or not. Our coaches have proven themselves reliable in being able to piece together a winning team with players they can train to fit the roles they want. At the end of the day, that is all that matters.

Don't understand why that statement is so often employed. Like saying I trust the traffic light. It is a given to trust overall we all must id the most significant imput factor, ie the traffic light, the HC. But anyone with half a brain still looks both ways. We all realize the decision for the light, HC to act is likely triggered internally but also based on external expertise, traffic patterns, traffic experts, trends as well as abnomalties. Same for recruiting. SS offers are based on greatly influenced by external sources of expertise. Indeed with occasional exception staff's decision to even initially look at a kid at all is typically based on information and imput gathered, organized and deciminated by trusted outside experts eyes, ears, judgment and expertise. It is no different than the choice by SS to turn over his defensive performance to another group of individuals whos expertise he trust. Doesn't mean by default SS has absolutely no clue when it comes to defensive FB. It means he fully recognizes he is a CEO who must be selective on where and when he aplies his personal time and effort. That he deciminate most actions to others. A strong argument can be made that the determination as to who, how, when and under what criteria he chooses those individuals who will in turn situationaly choose and act for him may well be the most important decision actions he makes.
To except opinions other that SS to matter is not to say the opinion of SS matters less.

Not trusting our coaching staff makes about as much sense as this post. We literally came from the cellar of the sec about 5 years ago and are a powerhouse in the SEC. Anybody that disagrees check the records. It wasn't by luck or basing our recruiting on stars determined by a couple of armchair coaches. Trust SOS and the staff, screw the rest.

Trusting the coaches has nothing to do external expertise being good or reliable or not. Our coaches have proven themselves reliable in being able to piece together a winning team with players they can train to fit the roles they want. At the end of the day, that is all that matters.

How does trusting staff not? (have to do w/ the quality and reliability of external expertise)? Your point disects interactive mutually dependent components of the personell process and declares the end determination component to be "all that matters". and the other (or others) such as external expertise avenues "having nothing to do with trusting the coaches" b they good bad or indifferent.

If you r declaring errornoues my statement that our staff (likewise every staff of every team in every sport) employs and weighs outside sources of film, information, opinion and expertise in denoting a prospect worthness of initial consideration thru offer then agree or don't your statement is logical.

If u accept as truth staffs including ours employ outside expertise then u can't logically separate and discount multiple components of a process. Indeed discounting the sources of information recognized as potentially valuable, ie, recruting boards, HS HCs and staff, community, pro consultants, opinion of other respected programs and staff etc. etc. is to actually back hand the judgement of the very staff you note to trust. After all who makes the decisions to seek out and assign value to the varied expert sources regarding each prospect.... our staff seeks and accepts and weights all of the above as A PART of the overall process. And the process from beginning to end does matter. JMHO WVP

How does trusting staff not? (have to do w/ the quality and reliability of external expertise)? Your point disects interactive mutually dependent components of the personell process and declares the end determination component to be "all that matters". and the other (or others) such as external expertise avenues "having nothing to do with trusting the coaches" b they good bad or indifferent.

If you r declaring errornoues my statement that our staff (likewise every staff of every team in every sport) employs and weighs outside sources of film, information, opinion and expertise in denoting a prospect worthness of initial consideration thru offer then agree or don't your statement is logical.

If u accept as truth staffs including ours employ outside expertise then u can't logically separate and discount multiple components of a process. Indeed discounting the sources of information recognized as potentially valuable, ie, recruting boards, HS HCs and staff, community, pro consultants, opinion of other respected programs and staff etc. etc. is to actually back hand the judgement of the very staff you note to trust. After all who makes the decisions to seek out and assign value to the varied expert sources regarding each prospect.... our staff seeks and accepts and weights all of the above as A PART of the overall process. And the process from beginning to end does matter. JMHO WVP

Our staff looks at that stuff, sure. But they make their OWN evaluations. They can accept or completely reject evaluations of others as they choose. All that is just gathering information. Our coaches have their own star ratings I am sure, and if were to use stars none of the players we offer would be lower than 4* by their evaluations.

Our staff looks at that stuff, sure. But they make their OWN evaluations. They can accept or completely reject evaluations of others as they choose. All that is just gathering information. Our coaches have their own star ratings I am sure, and if were to use stars none of the players we offer would be lower than 4* by their evaluations.

They also go over each recruit and must all agree to offer....position coach must approve first.....except SOS has the right to offer without agreement from the other coaches....Michael Scarnecchia.

I'll say this, their process has certainly worked. I have read over the last year or so that the insiders say the coaches pay absolutely no attention to the stars. Most times, they also want to see a kid play in person in addition to looking at their film. This hands on approach is time consuming, but I sure wouldn't want them to change anything.

Not sure what this has to do with a traffic light. As far as I know, our coaches don't use any external expertise.

I have read over the last year or so that the insiders say the coaches pay absolutely no attention to the stars.

I've had them tell me that face to face. To say that they don't put much stock in rating services would be an understatement.

Years ago I read an artical detailing the decline of either Miami or FSU (don't recall which, probably Miami but it doesn't matter). Members of the coaching staff actually admitted that they started relying on recruiting services much too heavily. They also admitted it bit them in the azz,

I have read over the last year or so that the insiders say the coaches pay absolutely no attention to the stars.

I've had them tell me that face to face. To say that they don't put much stock in rating services would be an understatement.

Years ago I read an artical detailing the decline of either Miami or FSU (don't recall which, probably Miami but it doesn't matter). Members of the coaching staff actually admitted that they started relying on recruiting services much too heavily. They also admitted it bit them in the azz,

Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys working for recruiting services are not former players. All our coaches have played at least on the college level.....nothing is better than personal experience when grading others since they know what it takes.

I suspect, but don't know for certain, that these services are of some value in identifying players from other states that the staff may not have full knowledge of. From there they may inquire about a prospect, look at film and/or reach out to the prospect to guage if there is any mutual interest.

I do know that decisons on who to actually offer has zilch to do with a star rating.

Alabama takes 3*s every year. Lots of 4* guys were passed over to sign those 3* guys.

I suspect, but don't know for certain, that these services are of some value in identifying players from other states that the staff may not have full knowledge of. From there they may inquire about a prospect, look at film and/or reach out to the prospect to guage if there is any mutual interest.

I do know that decisons on who to actually offer has zilch to do with a star rating.

Alabama takes 3*s every year. Lots of 4* guys were passed over to sign those 3* guys.

well said: I, no one I am aware of is saying coaches of such and such recruit player soley based on stars. Those of you so torn up about recruiting based on star value, IMO, have it backwards. Coaches don't recruit players based on stars. Players have stars based on the reasons coaches recruit them. The expertise that identifies these "reasons" a particular player is more or less desired by more or less programs. staff uses outside sources to include the intel that recruit gurus use when ranking or starring. to some extent it is the same intel.
We all realize our the nuances of the game differ far more than our understanding allows. Thier are some basic cominalities amounst this or that 4/3 D or this or that pro style passing aproach but the reality is there a brazillion differing aproaches to each of the four primary game components Each staff mixes and matches versions of each.

As I understand it the star system is simply a mechanism to recognize the projection of a prospects degree of likelyhood to contribute to many or few programs each emphasising somewhat differing aproaches and aspects to the game. The typical mid level kid who is seen to have the skills to possibly contribute to one or two or three aproaches or roles is likely to be covited by several programs accordingly and have a mid star rating, 2 or 3. As a kid is recognized to have to have a greater and more varied impact thus possibly contributing to a greater # and/or a greater influence in game roles increase appeal his star goes up.
The kid who is seen as one with a football scope as JD was is believed to have the ability to significantly impact virtually ANY football game using ANY style used in any # of roles. That kid gets the most stars, highest rating.
The value in stars is represented more in if a staffs initial determination is wrong than if it is right. Every staff envisions a role for any kid offered, even if the fashions in which he may contribute are limited. Should they be right, kid contributes as planned, makes no difference how many scemes and roles he might be effective in, he worked out, end of story kid contributes chalk one up for the good guys. SS has made a living identifying kids with limited upside over all but who have something that SS believes can be developed and contribute to what he wishes to do. But make no mistake, he pulls out that talent evaul and development skill set after he misses on the latimore, the clowney, the gilmore etc. etc. the kid everyone, including him, sees as having wide enought and deep enought skill set to contribute to whatever it is they do. The value in the kid seen to have greater versatility, typically the kid on or near the top of a board, our board, many boards. typically the kid with more stars, a higher rating recognized greater versitility, more tools in the box give him a greater chance of finding a way to contribute especially should the first tacts taken not pan out, ie melvin ingram!!
those countering my perspective are consistently noting who we offer, who we sign must be great because SS signed them with out denoting any measure to the fact that like any program our staff, SS offers many and has a board on which they rank first most desired options followed by less desired b options and c and so on. note i said less desired not undisired.
over the yrs all of the qbs we have signed ss offered but of those how many of those were his choice vs necessity, second or third or forth option on the board. compare the final star/ rating of our first offer at said position vs offers made once our first offer is declined. continue to note final ranking of prospects as we get deeper down the board, 5th, 8th 10th option tend not to rated as highly. Not because we choose to recruit based on stars/ranking but because stars/ranking somewhat represent a players desireability, thier ranking on varying programs board to include ours.
its the intel that leads to the stars/rating, the # and standing of programs denoting and recruiting said kid that leads to the stars/rating not the other way around. stars/ rating are a recognition function.

well said: I, no one I am aware of is saying coaches of such and such recruit player soley based on stars. Those of you so torn up about recruiting based on star value, IMO, have it backwards. Coaches don't recruit players based on stars. Players have stars based on the reasons coaches recruit them. The expertise that identifies these "reasons" a particular player is more or less desired by more or less programs. staff uses outside sources to include the intel that recruit gurus use when ranking or starring. to some extent it is the same intel.
We all realize our the nuances of the game differ far more than our understanding allows. Thier are some basic cominalities amounst this or that 4/3 D or this or that pro style passing aproach but the reality is there a brazillion differing aproaches to each of the four primary game components Each staff mixes and matches versions of each.

As I understand it the star system is simply a mechanism to recognize the projection of a prospects degree of likelyhood to contribute to many or few programs each emphasising somewhat differing aproaches and aspects to the game. The typical mid level kid who is seen to have the skills to possibly contribute to one or two or three aproaches or roles is likely to be covited by several programs accordingly and have a mid star rating, 2 or 3. As a kid is recognized to have to have a greater and more varied impact thus possibly contributing to a greater # and/or a greater influence in game roles increase appeal his star goes up.
The kid who is seen as one with a football scope as JD was is believed to have the ability to significantly virtually impact ANY football game using ANY style used in any # of roles. That kid gets the most stars, highest rating.
The value in stars is represented more in if a staffs initial determination is wrong than if it is right. Every staff envisions a role for any kid offered, even if the fashions in which he may contribute are limited. Should they be right, kid contributes as planned, makes no difference how many scemes and roles he might be effective in, he worked out, end of story kid contributes chalk one up for the good guys. SS has made a living identifying kids with limited upside over all but who have something that SS believes can be developed and contribute to what he wishes to do. But make no mistake, he pulls out that talent evaul and development skill set after he misses on the latimore, the clowney, the gilmore etc. etc. the kid everyone, including him, sees as having wide enought and deep enought skill set to contribute to whatever it is they do. The value in the kid seen to have greater versatility, typically the kid on or near the top of a board, our board, many boards. typically the kid with more stars, a higher rating recognized greater versitility, more tools in the box give him a greater chance of finding a way to contribute especially should the first tacts taken not pan out, ie melvin ingram!!
those countering my perspective are consistently noting who we offer, who we sign must be great because SS signed them with out denoting any measure to the fact that like any program our staff, SS offers many and has a board on which they rank first most desired options followed by less desired b options and c and so on. note i said less desired not undisired.
over the yrs all of the qbs we have signed ss offered but of those how many of those were his choice vs necessity, second or third or forth option on the board. compare the final star/ rating of our first offer at said position vs offers made once our first offer is declined. continue to note final ranking of prospects as we get deeper down the board, 5th, 8th 10th option tend not to rated as highly. Not because we choose to recruit based on stars/ranking but because stars/ranking somewhat represent a players desireability, thier ranking on varying programs board to include ours.
its the intel that leads to the stars/rating, the # and standing of programs denoting and recruiting said kid that leads to the stars/rating not the other way around. stars/ rating are a recognition function.

The star system is based on specific criteria for each position. How each player matches that criteria on a per game basis is how the star system works and how a HS players have their stars change during the seasons. Based on this star system Clowney was no better than any other 5 star DE in the country.

Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys working for recruiting services are not former players. All our coaches have played at least on the college level.....nothing is better than personal experience when grading others since they know what it takes.

^ This is so true and is probably the best post about recruiting I have ever seen here.

Also what b381l said about the coaches wanting to see a kid play in person in addition to looking at their film is spot on. It is very time consuming but the will have someone on staff or someone they trust film the kid play to get a more unbiased opinion.

Our coaches don't use any external expertise and I do know that for a fact.

For our football program as well as most other programs across the country the stars are only for the fans that don't really understand football and the different positions where as the coaches know exactly what they are looking for. It gives a ranking system for fans to grasp and to be able to understand who is best at their position. We are all hooked and want to who's the best in everything we do now a days.

. Based on this star system Clowney was no better than any other 5 star DE in the country.

i do not understand that to be the case. not all sites value exactly the same nor should they thus the intrigue of this site vs that site. not all 5 stars r rated the same. someone is the #1 DE and thus the highest rated DE as JD ws. Second some of the sites use a point system to decipher and rank each prospect both by position and overall with the #1 player overall, a 5 star, having the higher point value than the #2 player overall, also a 5 star. if a position has more than one 5 star then typically one has a higher point value than the other and is thus rated accordingly. That is why you will note I constantly used the reference "star/rating" in combination.